Issue advertising in Michigan state campaigns

This page has representative samples of television "issue" advertisements from 2014, 2012, 2010 and 2008 state campaigns. The sample ads are accompanied by tables that show spending in the respective campaigns, and the amount of that spending that was outside the campaign finance reporting system. Since 2000, the state political parties and nonprofit corporations have sponsored $130 million worth of candidate-focused television advertisements that sought to define political candidates' suitability for public office. The MDP, MRP and those nonprofits have disclosed nothing to the State of Michigan about the sources who gave them the money to pay for the ads

Questions and Answers about "Issue Advertising" in Michigan Election Campaigns

What is meant by the term, “issue advertisement?"
Issue advertisements don’t use language such as “vote for,” “vote against,” “support” or “defeat” a candidate. Rather than explicitly exhorting a vote for, or against, a candidate, most of these advertisements seek to define the character, qualifications, record or fitness for office of some candidate who is facing the electorate. Frequently these advertisements will urge the viewer or listener to contact the candidate and tell him what you think about one thing or another.

Why do the sponsors of these advertisements use an indirect approach to support or oppose a candidate?
The contributors to the funds that buy the undisclosed candidate-focused advertising don’t want to leave their fingerprints on campaign records.

Isn’t this a distinction without a difference?
It is, indeed. Seldom will a candidate’s own advertisements say, “vote for me,” or “defeat my opponent.” Candidates’ own ads, which must be disclosed in the campaign finance reporting system, tout the sponsor’s positive attributes, or attack the character or qualifications of his opponent – just the same as an issue ad. You’ll see candidates’ ads and bogus issue ads telling you that a candidate is “fighting for you and making a difference.” Rarely will any contemporary campaign ads tell you how to vote, unless they’re talking about a ballot initiative.

Why does this matter? Isn’t this just one big celebration of the First Amendment?
In the 2010 case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide whether disclosure of contributors to groups that buy political advertisements should be limited to cases of express advocacy or its functional equivalent. In an 8-1 decision, the Court said disclosure may be required for any candidate-focused advertisements. The decision said, “The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

You should assume that the interest groups and wealthy individuals who write five, six or seven-figure checks to the entities that aggregate funds to pay for candidate-focused advertising are rational economic actors. They are making investments in candidates and they will be seeking some sort of favorable public policy as a return on their investment. That is just the system we have. You should always ask yourself: Who is paying for this? What do they want? Why can’t I find answers to these questions?

Would disclosure diminish the First Amendment rights of contributors who currently benefit from anonymity?
The anonymous donors who fear disclosure say their rights to freedom of association with the fund aggregators who sponsor candidate-focused ads would be injured if their identities were revealed. This argument is derived from the 1958 Supreme Court case of NAACP v. Alabama, where the NAACP won the right to confidentiality for its members at a time when civil rights workers were being lynched and murdered in the Deep South. That situation is different in kind from a corporation that wishes to spend $1 million anonymously to elect a Supreme Court justice to hear its case in the appeals pipeline, and is worried that the target of its support may have to disqualify himself from their case if their campaign relationship is known. Or, from a case where a wealthy individual is willing to spend $1 million anonymously to elect a governor he believes will carry his policy water.

As the late Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.” Association of campaign donors should be free and public.

Why is most issue advertising so brutally negative?
The easiest emotions to evoke among voters are fear and anger. Campaign consultants will tell you that it’s easier to drive their opponent’s negatives than it is to raise their own candidate’s positives. It’s very simple: negative campaign advertising works.

Is candidate-focused issue advertising in Michigan state campaigns some new scourge that was caused by the Citizens United decision?
Corporate-financed candidate-focused advertising has been a significant factor in the most contentious Michigan state campaigns since 2000. Practically speaking, Citizens United hasn’t changed much about Michigan state campaigns so far. The one element that appeared to be new in the 2010 gubernatorial primary campaigns was the large number of committees paying for the functional equivalent of express advocacy, not the amount they spent.

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow corporate independent expenditures does appear to have unleashed a torrent of new corporate spending in federal election campaigns. Unfortunately, disclosure of the interest groups that put the money in the black boxes that pay for advertisements in federal campaigns is not much better than that which is in effect for state campaigns.

If this advertising is outside the campaign finance reporting system, how can you say whether it’s a big problem or a little problem?
Throughout this decade, the Michigan Campaign Finance Network has been collecting political spending data from the public files of state television broadcasters and cable systems. MCFN has documented over $50 million worth of campaign advertising that was not reported in the Department of State’s campaign finance disclosure system.

As one example of the scope of this phenomenon: In the 2008 Michigan Supreme Court campaign, the candidates’ spending plus reported independent expenditures by PACs and the political parties totaled $3.7 million. MCFN documented $3.8 million worth of candidate-focused advertising by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the political parties that was not reported through the state’s campaign finance reporting system. Literally, over half the money in the 2008 Supreme Court campaign was off the books.

What am I supposed to do about this?
Tell your elected representatives this scam is destroying the integrity of our electoral processes and they need to pass laws to require disclosure of all donors who pay for candidate-focused political advertising.

Your financial support enables us to do research you won't find anywhere else.